Survey about fossil fuels, man-made climate change, nuclear (John Shanahan, John Droz) USofA

Survey about man-made global warming, fossil fuels and nuclear

By Environmentalists for Nuclear – USA and Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions August, 2018 Final: August 17, 2018 This survey presents ten questions. Most can be Yes or No answers with comments.

However some questions may have different answers for near term and long term. Put that in your comments to each question. We record everyone’s comments anonymously so everyone will feel free to express their real opinions.

Thirteen members of the Board of Advisors responded. There are healthy differences of opinions.

One person did not think that nuclear would play a significant role in the future. Their reasoning is that due to political and anti-nuclear activities for over fifty years, nuclear in the USA is shutting down plants without them being replaced. This respondent obviously wasn’t thinking of Russia and China where they are building nuclear plants as fast as they can.

This survey is not just a simple gathering of answers. It will guide us as to how we can better promote energy and energy by-products, including for nuclear medicine in the future.

Thanks for your participation and support.

John Shanahan Environmentalists for Nuclear – USA Colorado, USA E-mail: acorncreek2006@gmail.com John Droz Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions North Carolina, USA E-mail: aaprjohn@northnet.org 1

Question 1: Do you think that human existence is being immanently threatened by manmade global warming/climate change/climate disruption or sea level rise? (If Yes, then over what time frame will this happen with continued use of fossil fuels?)

YES: /// Comment 1: If YES, then by what year?

NO: ///// ///// 2050

Comment 2: As oil will only last 40 to 60 more years, and natural gas 80 to 100 years, I don’t think that human existence is threatened because we will not have more to burn, only a matter of available resources. Coal is another story because it will last much longer; especially India, China and the U.S. will continue burning it for 150 or more years to come, taking into consideration that reconversion to other forms of electricity production are expensive and will involve significant disruptions to the actual means of generating electricity on a global scale. Being these three countries actually the largest world coal consumers, the CO2 level in the atmosphere will continue to increase in the future, and significant weather changes should be expected, that will demand important changes in food production and possibly the relocation of a large portion of humankind (see for example what is happening in the migration to Europe by Middle East and African individuals). All these changes will bring in severe social, political and economic conflicts, that could end in a Third World War. Humankind will continue to exist in the future, in spite of man-made global warming, but life as we know it will not be the same.

Comment 3: I do not believe we have any long-term scientific basis to answer this question either way. Having said that my current opinion is NO. Comment 4: Not immediately. But within several decades the answer in my opinion remains uncertain. It is perhaps the first time that man changes a global parameter the CO2 content in the atmosphere. Even if there is only one chance in 100 that my son gets hit by a car and killed by walking or running through heavy traffic across a large highway, I will advise him not to do that, be careful, avoid such a move and stay safe on the roadside. The only good reason to take the risk of crossing the highway with heavy traffic would be to escape an even greater life threat if not doing so, such as the highly improbable need to escape a hungry tiger or murderer or starvation threatening his life if he stays on that side of the highway. Even if there is only one chance in 100 that burning TOO MUCH carbon fuels does disbalance the climate and that global warming does induce man made climate change with large and global consequences we should at least seriously study the question and be precautious.

Comment 5: No, I don't think so, as I understand; climate change goes in cycles: the causes of global warming would rise and decrease after certain period of time (decrement would occur, after break down from reaching the peak of global warming).

So, more or less it would always be there, but certainly is a cyclic undergoing of planet and human race along with it.

2

Question 1: Do you think that human existence is being immanently threatened by manmade global warming/climate change/climate disruption or sea level rise? (If Yes, then over what time frame will this happen with continued use of fossil fuels?)

Comment 6: No, I do not believe that human existence can be destroyed by any manmade process. Even today we are only theories of cause and effects of climate change even though we have knowledge of previous climate change. We continue to test Einstein’s theory since it is not yet accepted as fact.

Comment 7: There likely is a long-term threat that will develop slowly. The threat is not as short term or dangerous as the media, many scientists, and politicians make it out to be.

Many have a benefit (monetary, power, etc.) in embellishing any threat. Major sea level rise is the largest global threat. (Many others are trivial.) Currently the major part of sea rise is caused by thermal expansion of warming oceans and melting of global mountain glaciers. Melting of polar ice sheets contribute much less. And the total remaining ice in Mt. glaciers would total less than 0.5 meters of sea-rise. There is also a long-term (not human-caused) factor in sea rise (since little ice age) not understood.

The current rate of sea rise is about 3 millimeters/year (12 inches per century) and slowly increasing. Some thought and planning for long-term protection would be good.

Comment 6: There is no convincing evidence that dangerous man-made global warming exists. There is convincing evidence that sea level rise has been between 1.5 and 2 mm for the last hundred years with no signs of a recent increase.

3

Question 2: Are you convinced that climate change that has occurred in the last fifty years is mostly caused by man's use of fossil fuels?

YES: ///

NO: ///// /////

Comment 1: Absolutely not.

Comment 2: Probably not in the past, until now. But even if climate change has been perhaps not or only partly caused by humans until now, the risk increases with time passing, with each extra ton of CO2 thrown out in the atmosphere, therefore the fact that the risk has not been the main risk in the past does not imply that it will not be in the future. It could be. Therefore it does require at least some attention, studying and consideration, if not action.

Comment 3: No, not solely the use of fossil fuels, but also several other human activities which has been neglected (and causing climatic conditions deteriorating).

Comment 4: No, I have seen no scientific proof. We have been having high temperatures the last couple of weeks but when the highs are compared to records none of the records have been broken. The records were set in either 1904 or 1898.

Comment 5: Both natural and human-caused, but human-caused share is increasing.

Fossil fuel burning is a major fraction of greenhouse generation, but not the only part, as globally land-use practices are important. (Only one-fourth of global CO2 derives from electricity production, the major target of CO2 reduction). More attention should be given to possible role of the Sun in temperature and climate changes.

Comment6: NO. Even the IPCC admit that there are many uncertainties.

4

Question 3: Do the societal benefits of fossil fuels with modern pollution control technologies outweigh their environmental liabilities?

YES: ///// /////

NO: ////

Comment 1: In the short term yes, because pollution control and mitigation has reduced the environmental impact of sulfur and combustion particles. However, in the long term the problem will be the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, caused mostly by the combustion of coal.

Comment 2: We have no choice at this point in our social and cultural development.

The answer is a clear yes.

Comment 3: Until now, yes, at least globally (worldwide), the societal benefits have been higher. Uncertain for the future. If and when human induced climate change is a reality, then there is a point where the societal benefits may or will certainly be outweighed (in the future). The problem is that if we wait to be at that point, the climate will continue to heat up during over 100 years after that (it will s a problem with a long time constant and no easy short term solution), it may be too late to start acting efficiently, like waiting to be in the middle of crossing the highway, is too late to avoid the risk being killed and run over by a car on that highway. Precaution is especially important when the risk is high (death).

Comment 4: Yes, we can not expect those countries that have limited infrastructure to suddenly be able to use and operate a modern energy grid.

Comment 5: Modern society has been possible because of increasing use of energy, mainly fossil fuels. Without that available energy from some source, modern society would not persist. Thus, fossil fuels are essential until suitable replacements are available. That is not now the case. Nevertheless, reduction of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel use can and should be implemented in a phased manner. That includes a greater role of natural gas over coal, research into means to reduce or store CO2 from fossil fuel burning, more efficient ways to use energy, and research into efficient and cost-effective ways to store excess wind & solar power.

Comment 6: Yes. The modern world exists because of the industrial revolution that was based on fossil fuels. There is a very high correlation between the Human Development Index and energy usage.

5

Question 4: Should stopping the use of fossil fuels be mandated for the world? (If Yes, then by what year?)

YES: ////

NO: ///// /////

Comment 1: If YES then by what year? Impossible to do so. No nation or individual has the power to mandate and impose something like that. Countries will continue burning available fossil resources as long as they remain cheap and abundant enough compared to other forms of energy. This is particularly important for developing nations.

Comment 2: At this point stopping would threaten or effectively terminate our current existence. It would send us back to a pre-history existence.

Comment 3: No, it should not be stopped ABRUPTLY as populations rely on carbon fuels that are vital and this cannot change overnight. But if carbon fuels massively burnt today can easily and progressively be replaced by another source of energy that also provides the similar or better societal benefits stemming from a large, constantly available and abundant energy source without any global risk (the only candidate available to do that is nuclear energy) then yes clean nuclear energy should be PROGRESSIVELY substituted to burning carbon fuels, as France has done for electricity production (and as the world is now starting to do with electric transportation). All side effects of nuclear electricity production (energy independence, economical balance, safety, footprint, environmental protection, war avoidance...) are only beneficial therefore we should go for it.

Comment 4: Yes! A period of a decade is pretty sufficient for authorities to switch to renewable source of energy. But this is possible only if the issue (environment degradation) is taken as first priority: which doesn't seem to be happening until a huge count of people is seen affected adversely. So, considering all these things, a practically possible and achievable duration can be till 2030.

Comment 5: Never! There will always be a place for some use of fossil fuels.

Comment 6: The public needs to be educated that the decision is not just a matter of using or not using fossil fuels.

A suitable energy replacement must first be available. Too many are now ignorant on this issue (including politicians and climate scientists). Developing countries (e.g.

China, India, southeast Asia, many others) now place greater emphasis on increasing living standards of their citizens over stopping production of greenhouse gases. The largest source of growing greenhouse emissions by far will come from these nations, and they are most unlikely to stop using fossil fuels without a cost-effective replacement. (Greenhouse gas generation in the US and Europe has been decreasing for over a decade.)

6

Question 4: Should stopping the use of fossil fuels be mandated for the world? (If Yes, then by what year?)

Comment: 7: NO. We now know that there are more fossil fuels available then we could use within the next few hundred years and, anyway, nuclear power could supply all the energy we need for, maybe, thousands of years. Within the next 100 years, fusion power will probably be available. That could give us an essentially infinite supply.

7

Question 5: What large scale replacement energy sources are there for coal over the next 50 years to generate electricity around the world?

Comment 1: Nuclear Comment 2: Natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, crop derived biofuels and wood derived biofuels such as ethanol and methanol, waste processing to generate natural gas and to be burnt in Rankine cycle power plants.

Comment 3: Nuclear Comment 4: Only natural gas unless we push for more nuclear and hopefully Thorium.

Comment 5: Nuclear, natural gas, oil Comment 6: Nuclear energy, especially SMR Comment 7: Natural Gas in large part and of course, nuclear (no reason the latter can't be adapted for rapid response generation; or used as baseline followed by combined cycle natural gas to engage demand flux.

Comment 8: Nuclear! It is unclear if this can be done in 50 years. It took France 25 years, therefore doing the same at world level in 50 years is a high but perhaps not infeasible challenge. If it is not 50 it can surely be 60 or 70 years.

Comment 9: Nuclear Energy, Hydro-electrical energy and Solar are few of the most promising alternatives to coal. Also, biomass, geothermal and tidal, etc energy are also in the queue. Nevertheless, the geographical parameters govern the suitability of the alternative(s).

Comment 10: Nuclear and natural gas.

Comment 11: We need large and small-scale energy sources the provide reliable on demand energy for residential and industrial use. Natural gas and nuclear can be applied to more than electrical generation both in large and small scale.

Comment 12: Currently none. The global power needs are enormous. And, to the degree that electrification of vehicles proceeds and developing countries develop, that need will greatly increase. Power production will increasingly come from hydro, wind, and solar, but only a fraction of the need. Further, nuclear power will not become a fossil fuel replacement without research into more cost-efficient and safe reactors. Some nations are proceeding on building nuclear plants (e.g. Russia), but the US currently shows little interest or effort.

Comment 13: Gas (includung shale gas) Clathrates, Nuclear and hydro

8

Question 6: Are there any sound scientific studies that have concluded that Wind energy saves a consequential amount of CO2? (If Yes, then name them.)

YES:

NO: ///// ///// ///

Comment 1: None that I know of. In fact, quite the opposite. See my and Tim Maloney’s article about gas-back wind and solar: https://atomicinsights.com/worth-thresholdgas-gas-renewables-bad-climate-coal-plant/ Comment 2: There aren’t any or they are fabrications of the truth.

Comment 3: None ! In fact it is the exact opposite: as an intermittent source of energy, windmills require a backup. Because funding is limited and the upfront cost of windmills is high, the backup is always coal or gas, that are less capital intensive, but in the end much more polluting. The pure nuclear solution (as in France, 10 grams of CO2 per kWh, 10 euro cents per kWh) produces almost no CO2 and it is much cheaper per kWh in the long run, as well as less capital intensive in the beginning than the tandem 20% wind + 80% coal or gas (as in Germany, 400 grams of CO2 per kWh not decreasing much, 30 euro cents per kWh increasing fast).

Comment 4: Wind energy decreases CO2 generation when wind power is available. But wind, like solar, must be paired with another reliable, dispatchable power source such as fossil fuels or nuclear. This currently requires two separate power sources -- wind and fossil fuel -- be separately maintained, at considerably more expense than one alone. That effect is observed now in Germany and growing in California, both of which have incorporated considerable wind & solar, while eliminating nuclear.

Comment 5: NO. A certain amount of carbon dioxide is emitted in manufacture and installation and a lot more is emitted by inefficient open cycle gas turbines that are needed to cope with the fluctuations of wind power. Absent wind power, more efficient combined cycle gas turbines would be used.

9

Question 7: Are you aware that Wind energy does not exist on the grid by itself — instead there is a Wind+Gas package?

YES: ///// ///// /

NO: /

Comment 1: Yes, but this is not widely understood Comment 2: Yes. But there could also be wind plus hydro at reasonable scale, as there is in the Pacific Northwest. And of course, wind plus coal, as there is in much of Texas.

Comment 3: Was unaware of this.

Comment 4: Yes, however, natural gas must be able to supply 100% when the wind is not blowing and also wind will not provide energy to my gas furnace, gas stove, and gas hot water heater.

Comment 5: Wind energy decreases CO2 generation when wind power is available. But wind, like solar, must be paired with another reliable, dispatchable power source such as fossil fuels or nuclear. This currently requires two separate power sources -- wind and fossil fuel -- be separately maintained, at considerably more expense than one alone. That effect is observed now in Germany and growing in California, both of which have incorporated considerable wind & solar, while eliminating nuclear.

Comment 6: YES. Using g gas turbines to prop up wind power is throwing good money after bad.

10

Question 8: Are you aware that studies have concluded that Gas (combined cycle) produces less CO2 than the Wind+Gas (turbine) package?

YES: ///// /

NO: /////

Comment 1: Not surprising and expected.

Comment 2: No, but this is not widely known.

Comment 3: Yes. And are you aware that the main renewable source of energy in the world, and by far the best and cheapest to exploit, is not wind, but hydro? This results from a simple physical fact: the density of water is a thousand times that of air, therefore it is much simpler to produce large amounts of energy from flowing water than from flowing air.

11

Question 9: Do you think nuclear power is important for having a high standard of living for people everywhere for the long term future?

YES: ///// ///// //

NO: /

Comment 1: It should be, but with the actual reduced number of new nuclear power plants being built and the inability of certain countries to correctly manage nuclear energy on a global scale, it will not become a real alternative to coal in the medium term future. For the long term, for nuclear to have a much more important role on electricity generation as a replacement source to coal, worldwide efforts to spread this technology should be made, instead of imposing the existing restrictions to it.

Comment 2: Absolutely Comment 3: Yes. It's inevitable.

Comment 4: Yes. It is not only important; it is the key to a better future.

Comment 5: Standard of living doesn't depend upon the power sources from my point of view. Although, it cannot be neglected that the energy production plays one of the key role behind a country's development. So, considering this point as reference, yes!

Nuclear Power can influence people's living standard(s) positively.

Comment 6: With the use of fast reactors there is plenty of uranium and thorium in the natural environment to supply electricity and process heat for 1000’s of years.

Comment 7: Nuclear is currently the only reliable option for total replacement of fossil fuel power.

12

Question 10: Based on the results of half a century of commercial nuclear power operations and the zero death radiation safety record (including accidents at Three Mile Island and Fukushima) do you think that nuclear power is important for humanity and the environment?

YES: ///// ///// ///

NO:

Comment 1: Of course nuclear power is important as an alternative to fossil fuels and CO2 contamination. Population and politician’s ignorance, greed on the part of the oil industry, and politics, including geopolitics and all kind of restrictions derived from strategic interests, have prevented the overall spread of this noble technology worldwide. There are no previous historical cases of a useful and beneficial technology that had been prevented from being spread because of the self-interest of some nations and individuals. Thorium, natural-uranium and reprocessing technologies have been banned as viable technologies for some countries because of the self-interest of the U.S. If all this continues with business as usual, nuclear will continue having a marginal impact on electricity generation worldwide and a reduced impact on man-made global warming reduction.

Comment 2: Absolutely. We need to explore Thorium and get rid of the NRC. Comment 3: Yes, it is essential. The best way to go.

Over time I have forged a general philosophy: if I am not sure what is the solution to a problem, or not even sure if there is a problem (those who do believe in man induced climate change will evidently apply this to climate change) then it is better to do nothing than change everything or take major decisions to face a problem that does not exist or is improperly formulated.

If there is something we can do that is certain brings only good at all levels then we should go for it without hesitation! This applies perfectly to civilian nuclear energy: it is good for humans, good for nature, good for peace in the world, good for the economy, good for the environment, good for clean air, good for the future. All green lights, go for it!

Comment 4: Yes, absolutely! Nuclear power plays a vital role for a clean-green environment.

Comment 5: Absolutely.

Comment 6: Yes, because it is safely available for use.

Comment 7: Yes, and more research needs to be done into better types of reactors (possibly thorium salt types) and into smaller, perhaps modular reactors. Far better to spend government funds on these activities than to give subsidies just to construct more wind farms or solar photo-panel power sources. Nuclear is long-sighted, wind & solar subsidies are short-sighted.

13

Question 10: Based on the results of half a century of commercial nuclear power operations and the zero death radiation safety record (including accidents at Three Mile Island and Fukushima) do you think that nuclear power is important for humanity and the environment?

Comment: 8 Yes. It is, by far, the safest major form of power generation. Hydropower and dams have killed thousands of people.

14

Responses from

Bogard, Donald – USA Boone, Jon – USA Comby, Bruno – France Conley, Mike – USA Droz, John - USA Gay, Michel – France Kok, Kenneth – USA Leyland, Bryan – New Zealand Lester, David - USA Maldifassi Pohlha, Jose – Chile Nidhi, Vagisha – India Posma, Bonne - USA Smith, James - USA

15

Additional comments Comment 1: There is one thing that I did not say but I find more support for my ideas based on my belief in an Almighty Creator who did not create man to destroy the rest of His creation. The more science that I understand the more I am amazed by its consistency and lack of randomness. God’s guiding hand ultimately rules.

Comment 2: How does the public around the world understand low dose radiation, low dose rate radiation and the Linear No-Threshold Model for Radiation Safety Guidelines with the Collective Dose Corollary?

I will also comment on the above statement. Ingestion of radioactive materials is potentially much more dangerous than exposure to radiation. This is why secure storage sites must be approved and utilized. Currently nuclear "risks" to the public are far less than risks from e.g., large coal ash dumps and dangerous chemical waste sites, many of which are poorly monitored.

16